25 States Sue Trump Over New Section 301 Tariffs in Court

Spread love

By TRH World Desk

Twenty-five states just sued the Trump administration over new 10%–12.5% tariffs under Section 301 — the third such lawsuit in this fight. States say it’s an end-run around rulings that already struck down earlier tariffs.

New Delhi, August 4, 2026 — A coalition of 25 states filed suit Monday in the U.S. Court of International Trade, arguing the administration’s latest 10% to 12.5% tariffs are an unlawful attempt to preserve duties already rejected by the courts.

A coalition of mostly Democratic-led states sued the Trump administration on Monday, arguing the president exceeded his legal authority by imposing new tariffs on goods from roughly 60 to 80 trading partners. The complaint, filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade, challenges tariffs of 10% or 12.5% on most goods imported from the affected economies, which together account for roughly 99.4% of U.S. trade.

The lawsuit asks the court to block the tariffs, declare them unlawful, and order the government to refund duties already collected.

States Argue Tariffs Are a Workaround

According to CNBC, the states contend the administration used Section 301 of the Trade Act to effectively replace sweeping tariffs that had already been struck down by the Supreme Court and the Court of International Trade. The filing also raises questions about timing: the U.S. Trade Representative announced the new tariffs on July 23, one day before temporary duties imposed under a separate section of the Trade Act were set to expire, allowing the tariff regime to continue without a gap.

CBS News reported that the new duties, enacted under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, target 60 economies with rates ranging from 10% to 12.5%. California Attorney General Rob Bonta framed the filing as part of a pattern, telling CBS News this marks “this is the third time we’re taking the administration to court over this misuse of power.”

Trump Demanded ‘Real Numbers’ on India Tariffs, New Book Reveals Turbulent White House Trade Debate

A Third Round of Litigation

This is not the coalition’s first legal challenge to the administration’s tariff strategy. Per Sourcing Journal (WWD), Trump’s earlier “reciprocal” tariffs, imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, were struck down by the Supreme Court in February, which pushed the administration into refunding an estimated $166 billion in collected duties. A follow-up set of tariffs imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act was then ruled unlawful by the Court of International Trade in May, though the administration was granted a stay allowing it to keep collecting those duties while it appeals.

New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement quoted by PYMNTS that “after losing at the Supreme Court, the administration is once again trying to illegally raise taxes on families and businesses with a new round of tariffs.”

What the States Say Section 301 Requires

The lawsuit’s central legal argument focuses on how the administration used Section 301 itself. Per CNBC, the states argue the statute only permits trade action after a genuine investigation into a specific country’s unfair practices, with any resulting tariffs tailored to end that specific conduct. Instead, trade officials completed 60 separate investigations in roughly two and a half months and sorted the countries into just four tariff categories, with only 2.5 percentage points separating the two main rates — and the complaint says USTR identified no connection between those rates and how prevalent forced-labor-linked goods actually are in each economy.

PYMNTS reported that the stated rationale for the tariffs was forced-labour enforcement, noting the lawsuit says the administration failed to follow Section 301’s own procedural requirements and imposed tariffs with no clear connection to the stated goal of combating forced labour practices. The outlet also noted the unusual pace of the process: while single-country Section 301 investigations typically take up to a year, the administration announced investigations into 59 countries and the European Union in March and had tariffs in place under Section 301 by July 31.

White House Pushes Back

The administration disputes that the tariffs are a legal end-run. White House spokesman Kush Desai told CBS News: “The United States is using its lawful authority to obtain the elimination of unreasonable acts, policies and practices that burden U.S. commerce.” Desai added that a trading partner’s failure to crack down on forced-labour goods “is unreasonable and burdens U.S. commerce, including American workers, and must be addressed.” He further argued that Section 301 tariffs have been a durable legal tool since the president’s first term and remain so now.

The states are asking the Court of International Trade to:

Halt enforcement of the Section 301 tariffs
Declare the tariffs unlawful
Order refunds of duties already paid

Given the pattern from the two prior rulings against the administration’s tariff authority, legal observers will be watching whether the CIT — and eventually an appeals court or the Supreme Court — treats this Section 301 approach any differently than the IEEPA and Section 122 tariffs that preceded it.